Gamification of education

<a href="http://www.knewton.com/gamification-education/" ><img class="colorbox-34342"  src="http://s.knewton.com/wp-content/uploads/gamification-education.png" alt="Gamification of Education" title="Gamification of Education" width="600" height="2831" /></a>
            <p>Created by <a href="http://www.knewton.com/" >Knewton</a> and <a href="http://columnfivemedia.com/" onclick="javascript:_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','http://columnfivemedia.com/']);">Column Five Media</a></p>
            <p>

http://www.knewton.com/gamification-education/http://www.knewton.com/gamification-education/

Learning Registry Metadata Initiative

Learning Registry and LRMI
Use of Metadata Tagging

Visit http://youtu.be/xKzpGjZ7sdE (click to open in a new window)

Education Metadata

Metadata why do I care?

http://www.lrmi.net/

why do we need a standard?

Recipe- all the different items that are part of the thing we are creating—standards about describing nutritional information of the recipe –this is metadata

Data-the book itself

Metadata for books—the title, author, length, readability

LRMI standardization of the metadata and how it is useful

AEP role-

Provides representation and insight on the LRMI TWG, oversee communication outreach to educational resource community

So what

Existing metadata standards now includes IEE LOM, Dublin Core Metadata, SCORM, Our own metadata schema

Why another standard—LRMI—to make it easier to find the resources—accessibility, the availability of curriculum, international baccalaureate

SCHEMA.org  international-need a standardized, centralized to use metadata to search beyond education

Leverage this to make the data findable, makes its way through the internet, need standaraized ways to find it

Need a common set of descriptors, common is not common

Education benefits by not going it alone but leveraging an existing industry-publishing

Allows conversation between stakeholders

Internet makes it more diffiuclt-various standards meet each other where they wouldn

‘t have in the past

LRMI—the future of education research

Visit http://youtu.be/xKzpGjZ7sdE (click to open in a new window)

Find overwhelming results, a million results, frustrating, takes too long to find what learners need, have to look through things to  find what they really want by combing through results to find what they need

Learners spending too much time searching, not enough time learning or teaching.  To be able to sort by grade level etc helps all

Focused on making educational and research resources easy to find

Coled with CC

Standard metadata framework for all educational content

Encompasses most common and often used key terms and filters

If adopted by major search engines, these will appear on the browser screen when educators and students are searching to help them get the exact information they need when they are searching

Get less results, but they mean more

Learning Resource Metadata Initiative

Recognize that publishers are helping in the discovery of ed res and the marketing and awareness and commerce.

LRMI changing the world

Process of describing the resource in terms of the sets of tags,  then publishing that in a number of formats depending on where it is being used (adopted by google, yahoo, bing)  making it evident where it is, making it discoverable

TAG ME <FIND Me> LRMI

Open source taggers, open source within own toolsets

LRMI enable better search

Potato salad search-set of metadata that come up in google without mayo etc.  imagine these happening within education—child ages 10-12, fractions, remediation?

Not for classes necessarily, but personalizable and individualized

Resources more easily found and more easily used

Enables better search

Fractions search, new version too available now

Learning Media

New Zealand largest ed publisher, print and digital company is gov owned, one of key clients is ministry of ed in NZ

Also global publisher and developer

Developed and host of largest metadata portal in NZ- hub for all  NZ

Market drivers-deliver profit, deliver future and digital future, growth,

Teachers need relevant resources, need to find info at the click of a button

Product perspective-plethora of computer disks in market,

Plethora of competitors, teachers can’t review all of these that are not relevant

Relevance

Discoverability

Accessibility

Channels and

Teachers and learners need to know searching yields relevant resources

Metadata—discoverability, relevant and accessible

Changes the way publishers stay relevant and

Bridging gap between publishers and educators

Challenges- search engines not structured for educational resources

No education schema for metadata, makes it a hit and miss chance to be hit by search engindes, difficult to clink up and browse

Can now provide structured linking and browsing, resources better aligned for common core standards, other standards internationally, better engaged educators who can discover relevant accessible resources easily

With no metadata, many resources are not discoverable within sear ch engines, when metadata is embedded, more tags come out and the resources become more discoverable

LRMI embeds more detailed tags in leveling, curriculum and standards alignment

MICRODATA reveal—a better tool for testing, displays the metadata in a table for display

LRMI enables:  search tools, integrated search, integration of catalogues of products, individualized learning,  and much more

Imagine a resource that rolls up when other searches are coming through, can find aggregated materials,

Progressive manner for using LRMI

The Gates foundation has funded the shared learning collaborative that is based on LRMI and also uses PARADATA which is meta metadata

SLC

Creates chsared data searches, Makes data speak the same language, opens the door to creating customizable learning maps and curriculum, plans for students, turn flood of assessment and formative data into actual insight and give students what they need in real time

SLC-cloud based data store, standardized metadata tagging language, open license API for building software applications that actually work together

More schools, better integration, and more data for everyone

Teachers can be free to teach, developers work  SHARING

Making better tools for teachers and learners

Creation and movement toward digital assets—LRMI plays a role to help developers to represent their resources, and to think differently about their workflow and products

LRMI and SLC—set of repositories of data, being able to coals those

Phase 1—

Development of specification, finding the learning objects within these specificiations by Jan 2012

Final review now

LRMI properties, learning resource or not, 6 directly at education—intended user, ed use, time required, age ranbe, interactivity, type of resource, competency and assessment

Common set of recommended values- ~300 developed in this set, will evolve over times, presentation, type, activity, etc.

Phase 2—proof of concept

Interactivity with the users, as we are tagging, how is it used, awareness building, collaboration of taggers and search, educator publisher surveys, encouraging/supporting schema.org adoption—will be turned on by next summer, then can filter by those attributes

PoC round one participants

PoC round two participants—22 actively pursuing phase 2

700+ resources already submitted for phase 2, 16 new publishers in phase 2

PoC next steps

Continuing to tag additional resources from publishers

Document best practice tagging steps

Generate recommendations for feature/function requirements for next gen tagging tools

Create service providers kit with services

Increase number of participating publishers

Shift from doing tagging to support publishers tagging

Goal is to make it easier to use,

References

Schema.org   http://schema.org

LRMI  http://lrmi.net

Learning Registry  http://learningregistry.org

Common Core State Standards  http://corestandards.org

Languages for metadata-localized in the US right now, in English, will be localized, there is a mapping to grade level, have a shema in any national organization around those pieces

Will work in standard browsers, google serves up different browsers geographically

Education LRMI not yet being served, by summer 2013

Content management systems- using to do mapping, can create an export, html microformat, fairly simple, limited fields

Does not address needs of higher education, only primary and secondary schools, higher ed use cases are completely different

How will ranking occur?—LRMI will not be part of the ranking, schema.org allows providers to come together to present, how it is decided to monetize it or rank it, we can’t use it, LRMI filter should be bringing better resources to the top

Creative Commons- works with open ed resources, license models for open ed, how to identify resources on the web and manage those resources

AEP and CC relationship balances the LRMI

In English now, math and language arts

Later will go into science and then social sciences, broader group around implementation of LRMI (spec has only been around for less than a year now)

Belief Mode versus Design Mode

Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia describe differences in the use of knowledge in schools versus the business or working world.  They define two types of modes for knowledge use: belief mode and design mode.  They highlight the difference in use here:

When in belief mode, we are concerned with what we and other people believe or
ought to believe. Our response to ideas in this mode is to agree or disagree, to present
arguments and evidence for or against, to express and try to resolve doubts. When in
design mode, we are concerned with the usefulness, adequacy, improvability, and
developmental potential of ideas. Switching back and forth between modes is
common. (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003)

 Bereiter & Scardamalia believe that good quality educational systems tend to operate and teach students to think in the belief mode only.  Students learn to use evidence, gather data, resist progaganda, and can adequately evaluate claims.  Bereiter & Scardamalia also believe that inadequate educational systems also teach students to operate in belief mode, but their inadequate teaching of this results in unquestioning students who don't really rely on evidence based claims to make judgements of truth. Their contention is that all traditional educational systems operate in belief mode in the realm of ideas.

When ideas are presented for consideration, they
are almost always presented in belief mode. The focus is on whether the idea is true or
warranted. If experiments are conducted, their purpose is to validate, to provide an
empirical basis for accepting the idea. Questions that would be asked in design
mode—questions that would be asked in a real-world knowledge-based organization—
are questions like the following:
What is this idea good for?
What does it do and fail to do?
How could it be improved?.....

Somehow, if the schools are to enculturate students into the
Knowledge Age, they must introduce this dynamic of continual idea improvement.

Bereiter & Scardamalia ennumerate four design-mode approaches in science education:  Learning by Design, as developed at Georgia Tech; Project-Based Science, as developed at the University of Michigan; Problem-Based Learning, as developed at Southern Illinois University; and Knowledge Building, as developed at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto.

In Learning by Design, as described by Holbrook and Kolodner (2000, p. ),
Science learning is achieved through addressing a major design challenge (such
as building a self-powered car that can go a certain distance over a certain
terrain).... To address a challenge, class members develop designs, build
prototypes, gather performance data and use other resources to provide
Knowledge - justification for refining their designs, and they iteratively investigate, redesign, test, and analyze the results of their ideas. They articulate their understanding of science concepts, first in terms of the concrete artifact which they have designed,
then in transfer to similar artifacts or situations, and finally to abstract principles
of science.

As defined by Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway (1997, p. 341),
Project-based science focuses on student-designed inquiry that is organized by
investigations to answer driving questions, includes collaboration among
learners and others, the use of new technology, and the creation of authentic
artifacts that represent student understanding.

As typically employed in medical schools, problem-based work is run according to a
tight schedule and fixed procedures, with only limited opportunity for iterative idea
improvement; but these are not essential features of the approach and are not
mentioned among the minimum requirements for Problem-Based Learning at the
Problem-Based Learning Initiative’s website
(http://www.pbli.org/pbl/generic_pbl.htm). Unlike Project-Based Science, ProblemKnowledge - Based Learning is not focused on a tangible end product. The end product is a problem solution—a purely conceptual artifact. Thus iterative idea improvement is, at least in principle, something that Problem-Based Learning could promote.

“Knowledge Building” may be defined simply as “creative work with ideas that
really matter to the people doing the work” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, in press). It is not
confined to education but applies to creative knowledge work of all kinds. Whether
they are scientists working on an explanation of cell aging or first-graders working on
an explanation of leaves changing color in the fall, knowledge builders engage in similar
processes with a similar goal. That goal is to advance the frontiers of knowledge as they
perceive them.

 Knowledge building is a constructivist approach; some of the most salient examples:

• A focus on idea improvement.
• Problems versus questions.
• Knowledge of value to the community.
• Emergent goals and products.
• Constructive use of authoritative sources.

A comprehensive knowledge building environment would provide a means of initiating students into a knowledge-creating culture—to make them feel a part of
humankind’s long-term effort to understand their world and gain some control over
their destiny. Knowledge would not be seen as something handed down to them from
dead White males. Rather, they would look on those dead White males—and other
intellectual forbears of different race and gender—as fellow workers whose work they
are carrying forward. The Knowledge Society, as it is taking shape today, seems headed
toward a very sharp separation between those who are in it and those who, whether
they live a continent apart or on the same street, are on the outside looking in. A
knowledge building environment should provide all students an opportunity to be on
the inside looking out.

References
•Draft of chapter to appear in E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van
Merriënboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning
environments. EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series.
Revised: 16 February, 2003,
Learning to Work Creatively With Knowledge
Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia
OISE/University of Toronto
•Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Learning by Design™: Interations of design challenges for better
learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies, 9(3), 338-350.
•Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting projectbased
science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.

Andragogy

Malcolm Knowles is recognized as the "father of adult education" and "andragogy".  Andragogy is an “integrated framework of adult learning” (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998, p.58).  Pedagogy specifically refers to the art and science of teaching children. (Greek)  Andragogy is based
on the Greek word aner (with the stem andr-), meaning “man”.  Andragogy is the art and science of teaching and helping adults to learn. 

According to Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998), the six principles of andragogy are:
1. The learner’s need to know
2. Self-concept of the learner
3. Prior experience of the learner
4. Readiness to learn
5. Orientation to learning
6. Motivation to learn.

Adult experiences can provide a wider range of individual differences in learners, which are often the basis of the adult's self concept.  Knowles (1969)  believed adults preferred problem-solving versus subject oriented learning. 

Barriers to adult learning include accessibility, affordability, and accountability.  Knowles believed the core principles listed above were integral to designing effective educational programs for adults, taking into account the uniqueness of each situation.

References
Knowles, M.S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic
in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
Knowles, M. S. (1962). The adult education movement in the United States. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Knowles, M.S. (1969). Higher education in the United States: The current picture, trends, and
issues. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education.
Knowles, M.S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education; Andragogy versus pedagogy.
New York: Association Press.
Knox, A. B. (1993). Strengthening adult and continuing education: A global perspective on
synergistic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

References: Research Papers on Microworlds

(also posted in my DNLE class)

Instead of citing all of the literature, I’m supplying a list of references to papers written on different microworlds.

References

•Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58

• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: BasicBooks.

•Galas, C., and Freudenberg, R., "Learning with Etoys", presented at Constructionism 2010 conference, Paris, France, August 2010.

•Galas, C., "Classroom Squeaking", Squeak News, Volume 1, Issue  4, October 2001. Squeakland Japan, Squeakland US, PDF

•Galas, C., "Changing the Classroom Paradigm", Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, April 1999. PDF

•Galas, C., "The Never Ending Story, Questioning Strategies for the Information Age", Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, April 1999. ISTE, PDF

•Galas, C., Rosenthal, L., Weishaupt, L., "Project Based Learning in the Elementary Classroom", Connections, Bridging Research and Practice, Urban Education Studies, UCLA, Fall 1999. PDF

•Galas, C., "From Presentation to Programming: Doing Something Different, Not the Same Thing Differently", Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, December/January 1997-98. PDF

•Galas, C., "From Presentation to Programming: Doing Something Different, Not the Same Thing Differently", Online Supplement, Learning and Leading with Technology, ISTE, December/January 1997-98. Microworlds, PDF

•Weishaupt, L., "Cyberspace Learning--Bringing it Down to Earth", UES Bridge, Vol.2, Issue 7, Spring 1997. HTML.

•Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital World-96 edition, edited by Kafai, Y., and M. Resnick.

• Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M., Ching, C., & Shih, J. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184. PDF.

• Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323–363. PDF.

•Ching, C. C., Kafai, Y. B., & Marshall, S. (2000). Spaces for change: Gender and technology access in collaborative software design. Journal for Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 67-78. PDF.

• Resnick, M., and Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning Through and About Design. In Constructionism, edited by I. Harel & S. Papert. Ablex Publishing.

• Resnick, M. (1991). MultiLogo: A Study of Children and Concurrent Programming. Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 153-170.

• Resnick, M., and Silverman, B. (1996). Exploring Emergence. An "active essay" on the Web.

*Resnick, M. (1995). New Paradigms for Computing, New Paradigms for Thinking. Computers and Exploratory Learning, A. diSessa, C. Hoyles, & R. Noss (eds.), pp. 31-43. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

*Bruckman, A., and Resnick, M. (1995). The MediaMOO Project: Constructionism and Professional Community. Convergence, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 94-109.

*Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., and Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable Bricks: Toys to Think With. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 35, no. 3-4, pp. 443-452.

*Resnick, M., and Wilensky, U. (1997). Diving into Complexity: Developing Probabilistic Decentralized Thinking through Role-Playing Activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 153-172.

Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. In The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness for the Networked World, edited by G. Kirkman. Oxford University Press.

Resnick, M., and Silverman, B. (2005). Some Reflections on Designing Construction Kits for Kids. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children conference, Boulder, CO.

Resnick, M. (2007). Learning from Scratch, Microsoft Faculty Connection, June 2007.

Resnick, M. (2007). All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. ACM Creativity & Cognition conference, Washington DC, June 2007.

Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by Choice: Urban Youth Learning Programming with Scratch. SIGCSE conference, Portland, March 2008.

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 10, no. 4 (November 2010).

Resnick, M. (2012). Reviving Papert's Dream. Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 42-46.

Microworlds

(Also posted in my DNLE class)

About Microworlds

The idea of a computer-based microworld is the constructivist design model of Seymour Papert. The computer-based microworld exists as a sandbox simplest case beginning.  The child needs no introduction or training to begin to use it; it is simplest case and it matches the user.  Microworld designers are assumed to be self-regulated learners who can monitor and regulate their own learning.   

Papert, a constructivist and constructionist computer pioneer greatly influenced by the work of Jean Piaget, developed the LOGO programming language at MIT.  LOGO is the first case of computer Microworlds. Yasmin Kafai, Mitchell Resnick, Idit Harel Caperton and Uri Wilensky were all students of Papert’s who have continued research on microworlds. 

There are many different microworlds that offer the affordances of simplest case and matching the user’s ability.  My experience is with LOGO, Squeak Etoys, and Scratch.  LOGO was first created in 1967 for constructivist teaching, and the first turtle robot was created in 1969.   The turtle is an on screen cursor that the user uses to program using turtle geometry.  Similar to x,y in Cartesian geometry, the turtle uses the x,y coordinates relative to its own position.  Wikipedia reports that as of March 2009, there were 197 different implementations of LOGO. [1]

Squeak Etoys was designed by Alan Kay and built by Dan Ingalls in 1996.  Etoys design was inspired by Alan Kay’s interest in constructionism and Papert’s work with LOGO.  Etoys is a media-rich authoring environment, which includes turtle geometry, 2D and 3D graphics, images, text, particles, presentation, sound and MIDI, and the ability to share in real-time over the internet. [2] Squeak Etoys was inspired by Papert’s philosophy and LOGO work.  Alan’s vision was that Etoys had no ceiling, in other words, children could continue to explore programming at deeper levels and interface with the powerful Squeak languageSqueak Etoys has been pre-installed on the  OLPC XO-1 computer since 2006, and continues to be used around the world in formal and informal education.  Here, Etoys intersects with another learning technology to improve learning.  This post is not about that, but you can read more about OLPC at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child.

I was fortunate to have met Alan Kay and help his group pilot Squeak Etoys in school classrooms.  I was invited to Alan’s yearly or semi-yearly “Learning Labs”, held at a music camp in New Hampshire every year before the traditional school year began, or at a university in March or April.  At this wonderful Learning Lab, many exciting people were invited, including programmers, education leaders, musicians, and artists.  Mitch Resnick from MIT was always there, and brought many of his students each year.   I don’t have the space to write how wonderful my collaboration and relationship has been with Alan.  Instead, I’ll give you Mitch Resnick, former Papert student, developer of StarLogo and Scratch and head of the Lifelong Kindergarten in the Media Lab at MIT.  Here is what Mitch says about the Learning Labs: http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/life-as-a-learning-lab-449.php.

John Maloney, who had been with the original Squeak and Etoys development team, went to work at MIT with Mitch to develop the new iteration of Scratch.  [3]  Scratch was initially targeted at after-school clubhouses all over the world.  I also worked briefly with some of the students from the LA clubhouse, hosting them to visit UCLA and working with some of their UCLA grad student mentors.  The Scratch website was launched in 2007, and is an example of a learner-centered, vibrant community that also includes an educator community. 

Scratch was built to be a beginner-intermediate programming microworld, so it didn't access more powerful programming tools.  Many years ago at a Squeakers meeting in Potsdam, Jens Moenig was demonstrating his new BYOB, Build your own Blocks which added new tools and procedures to Scratch.  Jens has since partnered with Brian Harvey at UC Berkeley.  Brian and Jens have continued the work on BYOB, now referred to as SNAP, and Brian uses the advanced Scratch environment to teach beginning programming to accolades at Berkeley. [4]

Mitch wanted Scratch to have a ceiling, so constructing one’s

The concept of powerful ideas is an important one for designing educational environments.  Looking closely at WHAT the expected LEARNING will be is a concept sometimes lost in looking at the glitz of new technologies.  Building on sound pedagogy is imperative.  I think collaboration of different kinds of people on these projects cross-pollinates the ideas in a helpful fashion.  Having educators, researchers, programmers, all working on design and construction of new environments is probably the best formula.  Some of you in this class may be all of the above!

Citations

1.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_%28programming_language%29

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoys_%28programming_language%29

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratch_%28programming_language%29

4. http://byob.berkeley.edu/

Why is Science Education Important?

Technology has changed the way we all work, play, learn, and live.  People use social media such as Facebook to keep in touch with friends and relatives, and make new connections.  Business makes use of technologies to communicate, to work in teams, to create new products and services.  Individuals shop online and make use of technology tools that seamlessly allow them to manage information.  World economies are, or are becoming information based, and moving away from industrial based systems.

We are living in a time where information  (doubles)  find numbers    , and world societies must face  problems of poverty, food shortages, water supplies, climate change, disease and medical issues, and environmental problems.  To respond to these issues, world citizens must be equipped tomake informed decisions on the basis of real information, not just superstition or word of mouth.